4 ms·

First the do-not-call-registry and then this. 'Bout time they did some good. Now fix the @#$%$% angel funding issue with Dodd's bill.

blasdel 17y ago
The "$2.3m" thing is a fabrication — Dodd's bill leaves it up to the SEC to adjust the old figure for inflation as they see fit. The original $1m figure was set by the SEC, not legislation. This whole 'issue' is like DEATH PANELS for startups, and this community is taking the bait enthusiastically.
- hga 17y ago
  Until you reply to this: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1276179 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1276179 I'm afraid I'm going to have to believe what everyone else is saying. As well as note that the regulatory changes---registration, 120 days, throw it to the states---could easily be much worse than these changes. Which would indeed make the SEC and their equivalents in the states Death Panels for startups. They would decide which get a chance to live and which die stillborn.
  - blasdel 17y ago
    Just did so. I had slightly misread the statute (or it's been updated) when this first blew up a few weeks ago, but it doesn't cast any doubt on my comment you're replying to here: the 2.3m figure is bullshit, the SEC is left to update the numbers themselves. While I don't find the new registration requirements onerous, you're absolutely right that the approval process for those registrations are insane. The 120 day federal approval window is bad enough, but the automatic devolution to the states is going to be a fucking disaster when some state legislature notices its newfound powers. Unfortunately, everyone's laser-focused on the idea that the pool of small angels could possibly shrink, making it very easy for others to write them off as self-serving whiners (especially when they're inflating their claims). It reads as "shit my old boss won't be able to fund my startup".

blasdel 17y ago

The "$2.3m" thing is a fabrication — Dodd's bill leaves it up to the SEC to adjust the old figure for inflation as they see fit. The original $1m figure was set by the SEC, not legislation. This whole 'issue' is like DEATH PANELS for startups, and this community is taking the bait enthusiastically.

hga 17y ago
Until you reply to this: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1276179 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1276179 I'm afraid I'm going to have to believe what everyone else is saying. As well as note that the regulatory changes---registration, 120 days, throw it to the states---could easily be much worse than these changes. Which would indeed make the SEC and their equivalents in the states Death Panels for startups. They would decide which get a chance to live and which die stillborn.
- blasdel 17y ago
  Just did so. I had slightly misread the statute (or it's been updated) when this first blew up a few weeks ago, but it doesn't cast any doubt on my comment you're replying to here: the 2.3m figure is bullshit, the SEC is left to update the numbers themselves. While I don't find the new registration requirements onerous, you're absolutely right that the approval process for those registrations are insane. The 120 day federal approval window is bad enough, but the automatic devolution to the states is going to be a fucking disaster when some state legislature notices its newfound powers. Unfortunately, everyone's laser-focused on the idea that the pool of small angels could possibly shrink, making it very easy for others to write them off as self-serving whiners (especially when they're inflating their claims). It reads as "shit my old boss won't be able to fund my startup".